Predictive Biomarkers for Endocrine Therapy: Retrospective Study in Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aromatase inhibitors improve disease-free survival compared with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial compared exemestane monotherapy with sequential therapy of tamoxifen followed by exemestane. The trial failed to show a statistically significant difference between treatment arms. A robust translational program was established to investigate predictive biomarkers. Methods: A tissue microarray was retrospectively constructed using a subset of patient tissues (n = 4631) from the TEAM trial (n = 9766). Immunohistochemistry was performed for biomarkers, classed into three groups: MAPK pathway, NF-kappa B pathway, and estrogen receptor (ER) phosphorylation. Expression was analyzed for association with relapse-free survival (RFS) at 2.5 and 10 years and treatment regimen using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: In univariate analysis, ER167 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59 to 0.85, P < .001), IKKα (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.92, P = .005), Raf-1338 (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.80, P < .001), and p44/42 MAPK202/204 (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.92, P = .004) were statistically significantly associated with improved RFS at 10 years in patients receiving sequential therapy. Associations were strengthened when IKKα, Raf-1338, and ER167 were combined into a cumulative prognostic score (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.77, P < .001). Patients with an all negative IKKα, Raf-1338, and ER167 score favored exemestane monotherapy (odds ratio = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.90). In multivariable analysis, the IKKα, Raf-1338, and ER167 score (P = .001) was an independent prognostic factor for RFS at 10 years in patients receiving sequential therapy. Conclusions: The IKKα, Raf-1338, and ER167 score is an independent predictive biomarker for lower recurrence on sequential therapy. Negative expression may further offer predictive value for exemestane monotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".